Thank you Scotland - and, hold your nerve

If the world could only follow Scotland's example, peace would break out and democracy would spread. The powerful are terrified.

Dear Scottish voters,

I am starting this letter to you the
day after a poll suggested for the first time that most of you will
endorse independence. For reasons I will come to, I still assume that
you will vote No, though hoping very much it will be Yes. But I want
to express my gratitude in advance for everything that you are doing
to make my own country, England, a better place. Not that this should
be your first concern!

Thanks to you, some terrific things are
taking place. By the simple act of your discussing carefully and
seriously your membership of the Westminster system you have done
more than show up its all too familiar decay. It is not news that its
resonant tones of self-importance sound profound only because they
reverberate in the echo chamber of their own hollowness (Boris
Johnson’s blather in today’s Telegraph
is a perfect example). What is unprecedented is the contrast between
Westminster’s bombast and your local meetings and debates. These
are telling all of us that we don’t have to be resigned to its
empty fulminations and it really is possible to escape the old regime. That British regime's representatives and pollsters have been telling us for years
that lack of participation, falling turnout, abstention and loss of
trust are a ‘growing problem’. Here you are heading for an eighty
per cent turnout after massive participation and engagement on both
sides of the argument, and oh my God, panic stations! It was not meant
to be like this. For Westminster’s leaders your opportunity to participate was supposed to mean: to doff your cap, tidy your kilt and kiss their
arse.

Historically, people across Britain
worshipped parliament. When it spoke, the world listened. It meant
something. And therefore enhanced us all who were represented by it.
Now, it diminishes us. What kind of assembly abolishes its keynote,
defining forum, Prime Ministers Questions, to scrabble off because
voters want to reject its rule? All this illustrates is a collapse of
self-belief, not self-confidence.

In his sensational
resignation from the Conservative Party, to join UKIP and force a
by-election, Douglas
Carswell MP said:

“they talk the talk before elections. They
say what they feel they must say when they want our support. But…
they never actually make it happen…. They seek every great office,
yet believe in so little…. They don't think things through. They
make one glib announcement after another – and then move on….
It's all about not changing things”.

That last judgment
which I have emphasised made him quit the Tories. I have been
privileged to meet him and read his book, The Plan. He is
exceptional for an MP not only because he honestly means what he says
(there are quite a few with integrity even if this disqualifies most
of them from the front benches) but also because in a restless way
Carswell trusts voters and wants people to decide things for
themselves. Maverick alert! In today’s Westminster such conviction
confines you to the realm of protest.

On 18 September you, however, have
earned the chance to really decide something in the calm of the
voting booth. It has been a huge achievement to get to this point.
The fact that you have seen through the “glib announcements”
shows the rest of us across the UK that given the chance we too, "the
regular folk "as Obama calls us, can take possession of our politics.
I envy you your opportunity.

Your dignified process also shows up
the role of the London papers, now describing your deliberations in
hysterical terms. To be sure, the attack dogs of the London tabloids
are rude about Parliament too. The Sun and the other Murdoch papers, as well as the Mail, the Telegraph and their Sunday sisters, all assault the
Commons for its corruption. Yet they trade on its weakness like
parasites, contributing to its illusions with their own pretension
that they represent free speech not corporate power. Had the press
been true critics of Westminster they’d welcome the actual prospect
of your blowing the whistle on its charivari. At the very least they
would be hugely sympathetic. Instead, the media are an integral part
of the British political class, sharing the same panic and rage at
the possibility that you might say, "Thank you very much but no
thanks", and walk away to become (but please do not use the word
too much in our company) a democracy. What horror is that?

Even better, after three hundred years,
you have finally elevated the principle of self-government into
British politics. True, you might be intimidated into rejecting it
over the next ten days, in the name of wisdom naturally. But it has
arrived back in these lands – yours and mine – of its seventeenth
century birthplace.

The reason we don’t like going on
about democracy down here in England is that the British version of
democracy is something our elite manages for us
on our behalf, i.e. it is not democracy at all. As Enoch Powell told
the Guardian back in 1982, “If you… put us into the jar labeled
‘Democracy’ I can’t complain: I can only tell you that you have
understood very little about the United Kingdom”.

The absence of any democratic spirit of
self-government in the 'British case’ hovers over Alistair
Darling's argument for the ‘No’ campaign. The feeling that he has
suffered from charisma extraction isn’t personal. There is no hope
in the ‘No’ message, no sense of taking the future into our own
hands in so far as we can. The only judgment it can call for is to
leave making judgment to others. Even everyday risk minimisation has
a greater sense of adventure about it than the ‘No’ campaign, for
it is about taking risks. The ‘No’ campaign simply stress how
unwise it is to take any ‘risk’ whatsoever with independence.
“Who knows what will happen?”, Darling complained, as if the
Westminster state he wants you to remain governed by was far-sighted.
Whereas, of course, tying yourself to the British state with its enormous trade gap and towering debts carries its own special risk of
pension default and the property bubble bursting. If the ‘Yes’
campaign wanted to go negative it could point out that so far as the
UK is concerned the safer course is to get out when you still can.

The other peculiarity of Alistair
Darling’s rhetoric that contributes to its psychic lethargy is the
unspoken concession that lies at its heart, as unspoken as the
admission that being governed by another country is the best that can
be hoped for. Making risk the main drawback concedes that the outcome
would be desirable without it. "It’s the Promised Land!", says
Moses. "Watch out we may drown in the River Jordan" says Darling
in reply. But note, he does not deny it is the Promised Land. If you are not obsessed with being part of a great power, as Gordon
Brown is, it would be very nice for Scotland to govern itself. If it
is ready to do so, if you can be confident of the benefits.

Which brings us to the heart of the
argument. Can Scotland flourish as an independent country within the
EU, trading with England and the wider world, taking in students to
its famous universities, selling oil, and attracting investment? Of
course it can. There is no doubt about it. It does not even need
North Sea Oil to be as good as many other countries roughly its size,
provided, that is, the rest of us said, ‘Good luck to you’. Here is the
proof. What would the referendum outcome be if Westminster says that
if Yes is the choice of the Scottish people then of course we will
help make it a success? And at the same time if the EU says what an
honour it would be to have Scotland as a member just like Slovakia,
should it ask? And if the international institutions that went out of
their way to embrace the small countries of the old Soviet bloc offer
the same facility to Scotland? Obviously, if the world was happy to
welcome an inventive, new yet experienced nation state, there would
be no question of its success.

The risk that Darling and the ‘No’
campaign are channeling is entirely a risk created by the wider world
to frighten Scotland into saying ‘No’. All of the problems it
poses are easily solved.

So what’s up with the world?

In June, Ben Riley-Smith, the
Telegraph’s Political Reporter, wrote,
“Alex Salmond suffered another rebuttal on the world stage on
Tuesday after China’s premier became the latest international
leader to urge Scots to reject independence.” He continued, “The
comments come just days after Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both
urged Scots to reject separation and Pope Francis said that 'all
division' worried him”. (The Pope was a touch more nuanced
than the Americans as the Vatican had supported the break
up of Yugoslavia when it suited the
Catholic agenda).

Obama’s advisors had apparently
debated whether he should speak out, and thought it best for him to
add, “ultimately these are decisions that are to be made by the
folks there", to forestall a backlash. Despite the point made
by Salmond, that with Scotland independent, America would have two
good “friends and allies" in place of one, the USA made its mark.
Naturally, he was following in the footsteps of a bolder leader.
President Putin has been asked in January about Scotland’s
decision. "I believe that one should not forget that being part of
a single strong state has some advantages and one should not overlook
this”, which according
to the Spectator means, he made it clear with his ‘single
strong state’ remarks that he favoured the unionist side.
Apparently, Itar-Tass
reported that "Putin’s intervention was indeed
prompted by a request from people in the UK Government”. They had
also pleaded with Obama.

The EU President Jose Manuel Barroso,
told
the BBC’s Andrew Marr that it would be “extremely difficult,
if not impossible” for Scotland to join the EU, citing the case of
Kosovo (and forgetting the more relevant history of its welcoming the
states of Yugoslavia, as well as the Slovaks after they separated
from the Czech republic).

You can share their point of view. Just
imagine if all the smaller countries of the world that wanted
independence were to be offered a peaceful transition like yours -
and voted ‘Yes’! Why Tibet would be free and millions of
Buddhists could travel by train through China to hear the Dalai Lama
genuinely thank his brothers in Beijing. Kashmir would be autonomous
and Indian and Pakistan would no longer be at war. The Ukraine would
not be invaded, Chechnya would govern itself, the Baltics could
relax, Georgia would be safe. The Kurds would have Kurdistan, thus
rectifying one of the great sins of the Treaty of Versailles. The
Palestinians would be able to form their own state and peace would
break out in the Middle East. Puerto Rico would be a flourishing
Caribbean country – or a full state of the USA if it preferred.
Independence can generate problems, as we are witnessing in South
Sudan, but if everyone could follow a Scottish example and vote
without violence for self-government why… peace would break out
around the world. Think of the appalling consequences for the arms
industry. What would happen to greatness?

No, no, no, as Margaret Thatcher would
have said, bless her. The rulers of the world and their unelected
bankers and hedge funders, who have failed to stop climate change,
collaborate to protect tax havens, and are overseeing an explosion of
inequality, all agree: it is a very bad idea for Scotland to break
away from a great power to govern itself. Suppose you experimented
in new forms of democracy, or show us how power might be more
accountable, or rid yourselves of nuclear weapons and make the world
a modestly more equal place?

What can they do to stop you now?
Threaten us, for it will be ‘contagious’ with a ‘mortgage
meltdown’, describe your town meetings across your country as a
‘blitzkreig’ - as if you are attempting to bomb London! - and above
all go for the pensions.

The coordinated, international pressure
to force you into saying ‘No’ will be immense in these next few
days, now ‘Yes’ is a real possibility. The most willing
participants in this spine-bending exercise have been identified as
those whose backs are already weakened with age. Mike
Smithson points out, “Older people aged 55+ are now the only
age group where No voters are in the majority – 49% say they intend
to vote No compared to 31% voting Yes.” So, they'll put them up
against the wall and threaten the integrity of their pensions. But an
outcome that swings on the grey vote will give a new meaning to
gerontocracy, or rule by the old. My advice to those of you who, like
me, have grandchildren and would do absolutely anything for them, is
to abstain if you are inclined to vote No. Just give them the chance
to choose their country for themselves. What better gift could there
be?

And the rest of the world? Don’t be
afraid. Once you have made the call to go independent, they are not
going to damage themselves by punishing you. Millions everywhere will
smile with gratitude, wish you luck, come to visit you as tourists,
buy your whisky and drink to your health.

The ‘British’ will have an acute
problem, long deserved. For this some of us will express a special
gratitude straight away. The rest will follow once we have sorted out
the English question down here. Then, we the English, will gain our
own self-government and to coin phrase, we will be better together!
So thank you Scotland and hold your nerve.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

Recent comments

openDemocracy is an independent, non-profit global media outlet, covering world affairs, ideas and culture, which seeks to challenge power and encourage democratic debate across the world. We publish high-quality investigative reporting and analysis; we train and mentor journalists and wider civil society; we publish in Russian, Arabic, Spanish and Portuguese and English.